mildlyusedbrain

I don’t think you understand statistics well enough to speak on this.

2016 Presidential Election – Predicted Clinton over Trump with 71.4%.

The above for example was showing outcomes of simulations. Many polls reported way higher outcomes for Clinton and he was one of the few models showing a trump outcome and Trump’s path to victory was in the simulation results. This wasn’t a fail but a success of his model

Like when you are told that in a coin flip, heads is the outcome 51% of the time and hear every coin flip will be heads

Common thing said but pretty stupid. Most scientific discoveries are grounded in figuring out anecdotal phenomenon. This is even more true for social sciences

Conservatives aren’t intelligent and making games is hard

Aesthetics here are chef’s kiss

I think the user is referencing the Gospal of Judas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

But not sure if there’s a larger thought group here to point to

It is - it’s a super affirmative position. It takes an extreme position within the sphere it’s trying to criticize to make an exaggerated point to attack. It’s literally a classic strawman.

Your follow up is in the same vein. Its empty rhetoric

These arguments are exactly why people hate vegans. It’s nonsense.

Not only do you jump to an insane straw man. You showcase that you ignore a clear increasing contradiction around your world view and choose reactionary nothing.

If you care about life realize the harder question. If you care about the environment realize clear inefficiencues. Currently, you showcase nothing more than crude thoughtlessness.

If he was using their VPN, they wouldn’t have been able to turn that over according to their own site: https://protonvpn.com/features/no-logs-policy#:~:text=No-logs VPN,lengths%2C or location.

This is a weird point. Like yes, Google is a government subsidized monopoly. But to keep this feature is a massive waste of resources.

Like from a tech perspective, this should not be done. Like fuck Google can be a thing and will have no impact on that

I think the way I would phrase it is that they are very consistent in their belief that there are clear lines for defining gender.

But that view breaks down the moment their definitions have to engage with reality and they are faced with the difficulty of actually making thos classifications when faced with biological realities.